LEFT TO IT IN THESE CASES.
JOYCE VANCE BACK WITH US.
>> RAISING MY GLASS TO JOYCE
VANCE, OKAY?
YES, JOYCE!
THANK YOU.
>> JOYCE, I COULDN’T AGREE WITH
YOU MORE.
THIS HAS GOT TO BE MADE A PART
OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, BUT YOU DO
ASK THE QUESTION, AND I THINK
IT’S AN IMPORTANT ONE, WAS IT
ALL FOR NOTHING?
THAT WE NOW FIND OURSELVES HERE,
YOU KNOW, I WILL RESERVE MY
COMMENTS ON THE SLOWNESS, I’LL
PUT IT THAT WAY, OF THIS JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, IN THE VERY
BEGINNING, ON THE HEELS OF
JANUARY 2021, TO REALLY FOCUS
THE COUNTRY’S ATTENTION ON THE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF DONALD
TRUMP’S ACTIONS THAT JANUARY
6th.
BUT WAS IT ALL FOR NOTHING?
EVEN IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE
RELEASED?
>> YOU KNOW, I, TOO, WAS
CRITICAL OF THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT’S SLOW START.
AND FOR THE FIRST YEAR, YEAR AND
A HALF, I KEPT SORT OF LOOKING
AT MY WATCH, WONDERING WHEN THEY
WERE GOING TO GET IN GEAR AND
TALKING ABOUT IT ON PODCASTS.
I THINK WE’LL DEBATE THROUGH THE
LENS OF HISTORY WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WERE SLOW OR WHETHER THEY
WERE WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES.
BUT MICHAEL, I THINK I FINALLY
HAVE A QUESTION, OR ACTUALLY, A
BETTER ANSWER TO THE QUESTION,
THAT I POSED, ABOUT WHETHER IT
WAS ALL FOR NOTHING.
AND MY ANSWER IS THAT IT WAS
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT JACK
SMITH ENGAGED IN THESE
PROSECUTIONS.
BECAUSE IN AN ERA WHERE WE NOW
HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
STABILITY OF THE RULE OF LAW, HE
STOOD FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
HE DID SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE
QUESTIONED WHETHER IT COULD EVEN
BE DONE, INDICTING A FORMER
PRESIDENT.
HE DID IT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE,
WITHOUT ANY INDICATION OF
POLITICS, AND HE PROCEEDED IN
COURT, IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY,
THAT UPHELD THE BEST TRADITIONS
OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
NOW, LOOK, THERE’S NO DOUBT THAT
IT WAS TOO SLOW, LIKELY NOT
BECAUSE OF SMITH’S FAULT.
IN FLORIDA, HE FACED JUDGE
AILEEN CANON, A JUDGE WHO WAS
CONFIRMED TO THE FEDERAL BENCH
AFTER DONALD TRUMP LOST IN 2020,
AND DID NOTHING TO MOVE HER CASE
ALONG.
YOU KNOW, THAT CASE, THE
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE, WAS
WHAT PROSECUTORS CALL A
STRAIGHT-LINE CASE.
THE EVIDENCE WAS
STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT WAS SIMPLE.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN TO TRIAL,
NINE MONTHS, TEN MONTHS AFTER
BEING INDICTED, SHE KEPT THAT
FROM HAPPENING AND ULTIMATELY
DISMISSED IT ON A BASIS THAT I
DON’T BELIEVE IS LEGALLY
SUPPORTED.
THE JANUARY 6th CASE IS A LITTLE
BIT MORE COMPLICATED.
AND AGAIN, THE SUPREME COURT
INTERVENED.
IN THAT CASE AND THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT HAS
BEEN CAPTURED BY DONALD TRUMP IS
SOMETHING I KNOW WE’LL BE
DISCUSSING INTENSIVELY OVER THE
NEXT MONTHS AND YEARS.
BUT EVEN IF THAT SITUATION, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE
CONTOURS OF THOSE CASES AND OF
WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID WITH FAR
MORE DETAIL AND SIGNIFICANCE
THAN WE WOULD HAVE EVER
UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT THOSE
PROSECUTIONS.
NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
SMITH WILL LEAVE BEHIND A
PERMANENT PHYSICAL RECORD OF ALL
OF HIS EVIDENCE, CASES THAT WILL
NEVER BE TRIED IN COURT, BUT
THAT WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
>> WHY WOULDN’T HE LEAVE BEHIND
A RECORD?
WHY WOULDN’T HE MAKE A REPORT?
BECAUSE IT’S THE ACT OF
PROSECUTION AND IT DIDN’T
ACTUALLY GET FINISHED?
WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON THAT WE
WOULD NOT SEE SOMETHING?
>> YEAH, I THINK THE QUESTION,
AND MAYBE I’VE NOT STATED IT
PRECISELY IS WHETHER HE’LL LEAVE
A PUBLIC RECORD OR NOT.
BECAUSE UNDER RECORDS RETENTION
POLICIES IN THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, THOSE MATERIALS MUST
ALL BE MAINTAINED IN STORAGE FOR
A PERIOD OF YEARS.
YOU KNOW, THE FATE OF THOSE
MATERIALS UNDER A DONALD TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION IS, I THINK,
SOMETHING THAT HAS MANY PEOPLE
CONCERNED.
THE ISSUE WITH MAKING THEM
PUBLIC IS TWOFOLD.
TYPICALLY, DOJ DOES NOT RELEASE
A REPORT.
DOES NOT TALK ABOUT A CASE ONCE
IT’S DISMISSED.
BUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT.
WE’VE GOT A SPECIAL COUNSEL
HERE.
THERE ARE REPORTING OBLIGATIONS.
WE WILL, I THINK, SEE SOME FORM
OF PUBLIC REPORT THAT WILL BE
RELEASED.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH DETAIL
WILL WE GET?
AND MY EYES ARE PARTICULARLY ON
THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE,
WHERE SMITH HAD SAID IN A
PLEADING IN OCTOBER THAT HE
WOULD BE DISCUSSING IN COURT WHY
DONALD TRUMP HELD ON TO THOSE
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AND REFUSED
TO TURN THEM BACK OVER TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
I DON’T THINK WE’VE EVER HAD
THAT QUESTION ANSWERED BEFORE.
MY HOPE IS THAT SMITH WILL GIVE
US MORE INFORMATION THAN WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
>> I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LISTEN,
BECAUSE THERE’S SOMETHING BAKED
INTO SYMONE’S ANSWER ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL FEAR OF RETRIBUTION ON
THE PART OF JACK SMITH IN
EXCHANGE ON NEWS MAX.
THIS IS FROM NOVEMBER 7th,
BETWEEN MIKE DAVIS, A REPUBLICAN
LAWYER, AND ABOUT JACK SMITH.
TAKE A LISTEN.
>> WHERE DOES JACK SMITH GO
AFTER ALL OF THIS?
>> HE SHOULD GO TO PRISON FOR
ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
>> SO CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE IF
YOU’RE JACK SMITH, WHAT YOU’RE
ALREADY PUTTING IN PLACE TO
PROTECT YOURSELF?
>> FIRST, I’LL SAY THE OBVIOUS.
THAT’S UTTERLY FALSE.
UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE.
A PROSECUTOR WHO PROCEEDS
THROUGH A GRAND JURY AND INTO A
COURT IN FRONT OF AN INDEPENDENT
FEDERAL JUDGE IS NOT PART OF A
CONSPIRACY.
THE EVIDENCE IS THE EVIDENCE.
THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
WE’VE SEEN MANY OF THEM IN
PUBLIC.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT
DECIDES THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER AS TO
WHETHER THERE’S A BASIS FOR THIS
INDICTMENT OR PROCEEDING, AND
THERE CLEARLY WAS.
SO THE IDEA THAT JACK SMITH HAS
TO TAKE PROTECTIVE STEPS TELLS
US JUST HOW MUCH DANGER OUR
DEMOCRACY IS IN.
SMITH, I THINK, IS IN A
DANGEROUS POSITION, I’M SURE,
AND I HOPE HE’S TAKING STEPS TO
PROTECT HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THE
PROTECTION HE DESERVES IS
PROTECTION FROM THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, FROM ELECTED MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, OF BOTH PARTIES, WHO
SHOULD ABSOLUTELY INSIST THAT
THERE BE NO RETRIBUTION TAKEN
AGAINST HIM FOR LAWFUL CONDUCT,
AND FROM OFFICIALS, TRUMP
OFFICIALS, IN THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
THE FOLKS THAT WE WERE TALKING